ILNews

Man who fled after hearing not entitled to discharge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) by a man charged in connection with a gun shop burglary in Morgan County was properly denied by the trial court, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday. Much of the delay in bringing him to trial within a year was attributable to the appellant, including his decision to flee after a hearing.

In Scott Speers v. State of Indiana, 55A01-1208-CR-391, Scott Speers was arrested by police on March 11, 2011, after blood found at the crime scene matched his DNA in the CODIS database. But his jury trial didn’t begin until July 17, 2012. In that time frame, Speers filed a motion to continue because his counsel was going to be out of town on the original trial date of Aug. 24, 2011, and then he later indicated he would plead guilty. Speers was also arrested in another county during this time, and then fled after a Dec. 22, 2011, hearing. He was arrested five days later.

The trial had to be continued so Speers could get a new attorney, as his prior attorney would be a witness in his escape case, and the case was moved to a different court. Nearly 480 days elapsed before Speers went to trial, but enough of the delay was attributable to Speers to support the denial of his Rule 4(C) motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The judges also held that the trial court didn’t erroneously admit results of the DNA testing in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when only DNA analyst Lori James testified. The lab tech who transferred the blood sample from the broken glass in the store to white cloths for testing by James did not testify. Citing Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703, 705 (Ind. 2009), the COA found that James’ testimony regarding the evidence sufficed for Sixth Amendment purposes because she had direct involvement in the testing and analysis of the DNA at issue.

They also rejected his claim that Pendergrass is no longer good law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012).

Finally, the appeals court held that the direct examination of the lead detective by the state did not present evidence that created an “evidentiary harpoon,” as Speers contended. He sought a mistrial on the basis the state was leaving the jury to speculate how he was developed as a suspect. The state tried to avoid informing the jury of the CODIS match, which would have indicated Speers had a criminal history.

The trial court correctly denied the motion for mistrial, the judges ruled, because the question by the state and the detective’s response did not inject inadmissible evidence into the trial, and it was simply used by the state as a transition from testimony regarding the initial suspect to the detective’s subsequent investigation of Speers.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT